Re: International Space Station


Rand Simberg wrote:
On 29 Aug 2006 09:34:26 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
<pne.chomko@xxxxxxxxxxx> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:


Rand Simberg wrote:
On 29 Aug 2006 07:47:29 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
<pne.chomko@xxxxxxxxxxx> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:


Rand Simberg wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:09:21 GMT, in a place far, far away, Monte
Davis <monte.davis@xxxxxxxxxxx> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

simberg.interglobal@xxxxxxxxx (Rand Simberg) wrote:

arguing that therefore no other entity is
capable of doing so, is foolish.

I couldn't agree more: it's the sample-of-one problem.

The grounds for belief that another entity "provided with funds" would
do better are, of course, equally insubstantial.

No, there are at least good theoretical grounds for that.

Yet no one bought Mir when they had the chance.

Explain your theory, Rand...

Explain your idiotic non-sequitur, Eric.

Before ISS, Mir was in space ready to be decommissioned. The Russians
offered it for sale and no one bought it. Surely the cost of taking
over an existing space station (Mir) was cheaper than putting up one's
own including ISS, yet no one bought it.

Which makes my point that *no entity has been provided with funds*,
you moron.

Which makes your being a commercial spaceflight cheerleader even more
the comical; you speak as if you NEED provided funds. And
theoretically, if there were provided funds rather than none, you'd
even have a commercial spaceflight industry. Theorectically...

Why don't you go and generate some theoretical funds so you can create
your theoretical commercial spaceflight industry to compare to what
NASA is doing, theoretcially.

In essence that is all you are doing when comparing ISS to nothing. At
least I compared ISS to Mir, you moron!

Eric

.

Relevant Pages